Relationship of Stress Test Findings to Anatomic or Functional Extent of Coronary Artery Disease Assessed by Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography‐Derived Fractional Flow Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. In the United States, functional stress testing is the primary imaging modality for patients with stable symptoms suspected to represent coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is excellent at identifying anatomic coronary artery disease (CAD). The application of computational fluid dynamics to coronary CTA allows fractional flow reserve (FFR) to be calculated noninvasively (FFRCT). The relationship of noninvasive stress testing to coronary CTA and FFRCT in real‐world clinical practice has not been studied. Methods. We evaluated 206 consecutive patients at Loyola University Chicago with suspected CAD who underwent noninvasive stress testing followed by coronary CTA and FFRCT when indicated. Patients were categorized by stress test results (positive, negative, indeterminate, and equivocal). Duke treadmill score (DTS), METS, exercise duration, and chest pain with exercise were analyzed. Lesions ≥ 50%stenosis were considered positive by coronary CTA. FFRCT < 0.80 was considered diagnostic of ischemia. Results. Two hundred and six patients had paired noninvasive stress test and coronary CTA/FFRCT results. The median time from stress test to coronary CTA was 49 days. Average patient age was 60.3 years, and 42% were male. Of the 206 stress tests, 75% were exercise (70% echocardiographic, 26% nuclear, and 4% EKG). There were no associations of stress test results with CAD > 50% or FFRCT < 0.80 (p = 0.927 and p = 0.910, respectively). Of those with a positive stress test, only 30% (3/10) had CAD > 50% and only 50% (5/10) had FFRCT < 0.80. Chest pain with exercise did not correlate with CAD > 50% or FFRCT < 0.80 (p = 0.66 and p = 0.12, respectively). There were no significant correlations between METS, DTS, or exercise duration and FFRCT (r = 0.093, p = 0.274; r = 0.012, p = 0.883; and r = 0.034, p = 0.680; respectively). Conclusion. Noninvasive stress testing, functional capacity, chest pain with exercise, and DTS are not associated with anatomic or functional CAD using a diagnostic strategy of coronary CTA and FFRCT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".